MRandall25 wrote:You're leaving off the part where the owners crack and try to work a deal.

It's not that inconceivable. They'd rather make a deal than have decertification. I think the majority of the owners would convince the hardline 8 that it's not worth the risk in court.

I agree...this comes down to 1 thing. Players decertify (and it is upheld by courts) and my interpretation, which i will admit could be wrong, is the cap- which the owners fought for and won- is gone. The league would be a mess and the appraisal value of each franchise (which someone before in this thread dismissed the forbes article based on general message board knowledge (whatever that means)) is in question. Owner's franchises are an investment...one that for most teams has done very well. If the NHL looks to be a train wreck that sponsors question involvement in and one that turns off potential future investors (owners) then the current group at the top of the NHL has quite a lot to lose.

The problem- at least from a pure negotiation standpoint is that the NHLPA hasn't had much leverage. This may be one of the most straight forward paths they have

MRandall25 wrote:NBA and NFL PA's decertified. They turned out fine. It's one of the few pieces of hard leverage the players have.

But... if they actually did that and it made it through the courts and the courts sided with the players, then you would have no free agency, no draft, no labor laws, no minimum salary, no contract guidelines. That would be awful for.... like everyone on both sides.

Did it even get to the courts in the other leagues? If the players do it, I'd have a feeling the owners would start to give in before it got to court.

I don't know dude. These are the NHL owners we are talking about here. I hardly think this would work as some sort of a scare tactic. I would see 3 possible outcomes with that course of action.

1. The courts side with the owners and the lockout continues. Also, it costs both sides money in court fees, fees the owners will be much more accepting to pay.2. The courts side with the players and all the former stipulations take place and suddenly you have the select few top level players making out in this new system. It hurts the vast majority of players and hurts all the owners not named the Rangers, Flyers, Leafs, Canadians and Bruins.3. It's settled before it can make it through the courts and the players end up spending more money in court fees while still getting the same deal or a worse deal.

I don't see a positive here. Please correct me if i'm totally off base here.

I don't think the players' legal fees will be much of a factor since they'll almost certainly be respresented by Don Fehr. Since he pledged to not take a pay until the players got a deal, he'd basically be getting his money out of the court case instead of through signing a CBA.

The idea is that the threat of decertification is enough to force the owners' hand in making a deal.

As I recall earlier in this thread it was pointed out while the courts let the NFL players decertify there union two different appeals courts upheld the lockout. If that is the case aren't the players taking a huge risk that if they decertify they will be in a worse bargaining position. Maybe someone with more legal experience could comment but I was under the impression that judges did not like to rule against earlier established precedents in this case upholding the lockout.

MRandall25 wrote:NBA and NFL PA's decertified. They turned out fine. It's one of the few pieces of hard leverage the players have.

But... if they actually did that and it made it through the courts and the courts sided with the players, then you would have no free agency, no draft, no labor laws, no minimum salary, no contract guidelines. That would be awful for.... like everyone on both sides.

Did it even get to the courts in the other leagues? If the players do it, I'd have a feeling the owners would start to give in before it got to court.

I don't know dude. These are the NHL owners we are talking about here. I hardly think this would work as some sort of a scare tactic. I would see 3 possible outcomes with that course of action.

1. The courts side with the owners and the lockout continues. Also, it costs both sides money in court fees, fees the owners will be much more accepting to pay.2. The courts side with the players and all the former stipulations take place and suddenly you have the select few top level players making out in this new system. It hurts the vast majority of players and hurts all the owners not named the Rangers, Flyers, Leafs, Canadians and Bruins.3. It's settled before it can make it through the courts and the players end up spending more money in court fees while still getting the same deal or a worse deal.

I don't see a positive here. Please correct me if i'm totally off base here.

I don't think the players' legal fees will be much of a factor since they'll almost certainly be respresented by Don Fehr. Since he pledged to not take a pay until the players got a deal, he'd basically be getting his money out of the court case instead of through signing a CBA.

The idea is that the threat of decertification is enough to force the owners' hand in making a deal.

I'm not sure it forces the owners hand. To the best of my knowledge the union membership has to vote to de-certify. The owners would probably let the players union know in advance they are cancelling the season if they de-certify, if for no other reason than this would end up in court and potentially take many months with appeals etc. I'm not sure you can get 51% of the NHLPA to vote to flush the season down the toilet, especially since the ones to benefit from de-certifocation are the top 10% of players, making the most money.

I would have to think though now you got a real proposal from the players, you can now put it side by side to the owners proposals and start a give and take session or find middle ground on some issues.

Decertifcation has a ton of implications, and is a proccess that will take a long time in the courts, all the time the players lose paychecks. lets hope this alone stops them from going forth with it. It might not even hold up in court for them to decertify.

Fehr would love to take this labor dispute in the court room, that is where his strenghts lay.

no name wrote:I would have to think though now you got a real proposal from the players, you can now put it side by side to the owners proposals and start a give and take session or find middle ground on some issues.

Decertifcation has a ton of implications, and is a proccess that will take a long time in the courts, all the time the players lose paychecks. lets hope this alone stops them from going forth with it. It might not even hold up in court for them to decertify.

Fehr would love to take this labor dispute in the court room, that is where his strenghts lay.

The point, for the players, isn't to get completely decertified. It's to force the owners to start making concessions/negotiating or face the consequences.

Based on the current schedule, the pens have 45 games scheduled from Jan 1 through the end of the season. The new schedule could stuff some extra games in there so you could play 50 games or so if you start playing on Jan 1. I think they need to have a deal by Christmas or the season is cancelled. I don't see them waiting into January to make a decision.

no name wrote:I would have to think though now you got a real proposal from the players, you can now put it side by side to the owners proposals and start a give and take session or find middle ground on some issues.

Decertifcation has a ton of implications, and is a proccess that will take a long time in the courts, all the time the players lose paychecks. lets hope this alone stops them from going forth with it. It might not even hold up in court for them to decertify.

Fehr would love to take this labor dispute in the court room, that is where his strenghts lay.

The point, for the players, isn't to get completely decertified. It's to force the owners to start making concessions/negotiating or face the consequences.

I think its time for the NHLPA to realize they need to go 50/50 with the owners in HRR starting in year one if they want a deal this year, otherwise the season is cancelled. The de-certification is a threat only, if Fehr plays that card his membeship will lose big time.

no name wrote:I would have to think though now you got a real proposal from the players, you can now put it side by side to the owners proposals and start a give and take session or find middle ground on some issues.

Decertifcation has a ton of implications, and is a proccess that will take a long time in the courts, all the time the players lose paychecks. lets hope this alone stops them from going forth with it. It might not even hold up in court for them to decertify.

Fehr would love to take this labor dispute in the court room, that is where his strenghts lay.

The point, for the players, isn't to get completely decertified. It's to force the owners to start making concessions/negotiating or face the consequences.

I think its time for the NHLPA to realize they need to go 50/50 with the owners in HRR starting in year one if they want a deal this year, otherwise the season is cancelled. The de-certification is a threat only, if Fehr plays that card his membeship will lose big time.

I don't know if you read, but the players did go to 50/50. The owners are arguing over a $182 million difference.

pens_CT wrote:I think its time for the NHLPA to realize they need to go 50/50 with the owners in HRR starting in year one if they want a deal this year, otherwise the season is cancelled. The de-certification is a threat only, if Fehr plays that card his membeship will lose big time.

...and if the NHLPA caves, what is to stop the owners from asking for 55% in 6 more years? i am not saying that the players shouldn't go 50/50, but the owners take it or leave it stance -- started with that horrendous first proposal -- did nothing more than galvanize the union against the owners and (in my opinion) substantiate the belief that owners are not interested in a partnership and will continue to push on all fronts every opportunity they'll get. it is this the NHLPA is fighting against and why they hired Fehr.

it is a sense of history (which isn't even that old) that is missing here. I don't think it is philosophically correct to look at this lockout without taking the previous one into context as well.

no name wrote:I would have to think though now you got a real proposal from the players, you can now put it side by side to the owners proposals and start a give and take session or find middle ground on some issues.

Decertifcation has a ton of implications, and is a proccess that will take a long time in the courts, all the time the players lose paychecks. lets hope this alone stops them from going forth with it. It might not even hold up in court for them to decertify.

Fehr would love to take this labor dispute in the court room, that is where his strenghts lay.

The point, for the players, isn't to get completely decertified. It's to force the owners to start making concessions/negotiating or face the consequences.

I think its time for the NHLPA to realize they need to go 50/50 with the owners in HRR starting in year one if they want a deal this year, otherwise the season is cancelled. The de-certification is a threat only, if Fehr plays that card his membeship will lose big time.

I don't know if you read, but the players did go to 50/50. The owners are arguing over a $182 million difference.

I do read and it wasn't 50/50 in year one if you throw their make whoie payments in. Its 2016/2017 before they get to 50/50.

pens_CT wrote:I think its time for the NHLPA to realize they need to go 50/50 with the owners in HRR starting in year one if they want a deal this year, otherwise the season is cancelled. The de-certification is a threat only, if Fehr plays that card his membeship will lose big time.

...and if the NHLPA caves, what is to stop the owners from asking for 55% in 6 more years? i am not saying that the players shouldn't go 50/50, but the owners take it or leave it stance -- started with that horrendous first proposal -- did nothing more than galvanize the union against the owners and (in my opinion) substantiate the belief that owners are not interested in a partnership and will continue to push on all fronts every opportunity they'll get. it is this the NHLPA is fighting against and why they hired Fehr.

it is a sense of history (which isn't even that old) that is missing here. I don't think it is philosophically correct to look at this lockout without taking the previous one into context as well.

So maybe instead of asking for give backs, the owners should decide to eliminate teams that are swimming in red ink. Do you think Donnie boy would prefer that instead?

pens_CT wrote:I think its time for the NHLPA to realize they need to go 50/50 with the owners in HRR starting in year one if they want a deal this year, otherwise the season is cancelled. The de-certification is a threat only, if Fehr plays that card his membeship will lose big time.

...and if the NHLPA caves, what is to stop the owners from asking for 55% in 6 more years? i am not saying that the players shouldn't go 50/50, but the owners take it or leave it stance -- started with that horrendous first proposal -- did nothing more than galvanize the union against the owners and (in my opinion) substantiate the belief that owners are not interested in a partnership and will continue to push on all fronts every opportunity they'll get. it is this the NHLPA is fighting against and why they hired Fehr.

it is a sense of history (which isn't even that old) that is missing here. I don't think it is philosophically correct to look at this lockout without taking the previous one into context as well.

Intresting, i guess its not out of the question that if the CBA is not that good for the league 4 teams could go belly up. Forcing 88 NHLPA members out of jobs.

So maybe instead of asking for give backs, the owners should decide to eliminate teams that are swimming in red ink. Do you think Donnie boy would prefer that instead?

pens_CT wrote:I think its time for the NHLPA to realize they need to go 50/50 with the owners in HRR starting in year one if they want a deal this year, otherwise the season is cancelled. The de-certification is a threat only, if Fehr plays that card his membeship will lose big time.

...and if the NHLPA caves, what is to stop the owners from asking for 55% in 6 more years? i am not saying that the players shouldn't go 50/50, but the owners take it or leave it stance -- started with that horrendous first proposal -- did nothing more than galvanize the union against the owners and (in my opinion) substantiate the belief that owners are not interested in a partnership and will continue to push on all fronts every opportunity they'll get. it is this the NHLPA is fighting against and why they hired Fehr.

it is a sense of history (which isn't even that old) that is missing here. I don't think it is philosophically correct to look at this lockout without taking the previous one into context as well.

So maybe instead of asking for give backs, the owners should decide to eliminate teams that are swimming in red ink. Do you think Donnie boy would prefer that instead?

I don't think "donnie boy" would like that...but really, i don't think the owners would either. That is like telling everyone in the room, regardless on which side they are on, to arbitrarily cut off their left hand.

By the way- never said i am a fan of fehr...just i understand how he got here. You can say the players hired him, but it was the owners who made him (relatively speaking) necessary.

no name wrote:I would have to think though now you got a real proposal from the players, you can now put it side by side to the owners proposals and start a give and take session or find middle ground on some issues.

Decertifcation has a ton of implications, and is a proccess that will take a long time in the courts, all the time the players lose paychecks. lets hope this alone stops them from going forth with it. It might not even hold up in court for them to decertify.

Fehr would love to take this labor dispute in the court room, that is where his strenghts lay.

The point, for the players, isn't to get completely decertified. It's to force the owners to start making concessions/negotiating or face the consequences.

Exactly. It's not that they want to decertify, because they lose insurance, arbitration, and all the other good things that come from the NHLPA. That's why it's referred to as a "nuclear option" for them. If they are seriously talking about decertification, then they feel they can't bend any further in CBA talks.

Michal Neuvirth:Roman Hamrlik is not alone w/ his opinion. #Caps goalie Michal Neuvirth just said for our TV NOVA Sport: "I agree 100% with Hammer. This lockout is not about majority of players, i think. It is about several superstars with big contracts.“

“For me, I think those guys selling us out, being selfish like that and making those comments…” he said. “Me being on their team, how am I going to trust them as a teammate from now on? Because you know they’re not going to support players in the big scheme of things when you go and you play on the team with them; it’s going to be tough to want to back those guys from now on.”

pens_CT wrote:I think its time for the NHLPA to realize they need to go 50/50 with the owners in HRR starting in year one if they want a deal this year, otherwise the season is cancelled. The de-certification is a threat only, if Fehr plays that card his membeship will lose big time.

...and if the NHLPA caves, what is to stop the owners from asking for 55% in 6 more years? i am not saying that the players shouldn't go 50/50, but the owners take it or leave it stance -- started with that horrendous first proposal -- did nothing more than galvanize the union against the owners and (in my opinion) substantiate the belief that owners are not interested in a partnership and will continue to push on all fronts every opportunity they'll get. it is this the NHLPA is fighting against and why they hired Fehr.

it is a sense of history (which isn't even that old) that is missing here. I don't think it is philosophically correct to look at this lockout without taking the previous one into context as well.

So maybe instead of asking for give backs, the owners should decide to eliminate teams that are swimming in red ink. Do you think Donnie boy would prefer that instead?

That's the last thing the PA wants. There's a reason they pushed for profit sharing in the last CBA and are trying to get it increased in the current talks. Losing teams means losing jobs.

Sarcastic wrote:Michal Neuvirth:Roman Hamrlik is not alone w/ his opinion. #Caps goalie Michal Neuvirth just said for our TV NOVA Sport: "I agree 100% with Hammer. This lockout is not about majority of players, i think. It is about several superstars with big contracts.“

“For me, I think those guys selling us out, being selfish like that and making those comments…” he said. “Me being on their team, how am I going to trust them as a teammate from now on? Because you know they’re not going to support players in the big scheme of things when you go and you play on the team with them; it’s going to be tough to want to back those guys from now on.”

You can trust them when they do the right things on the ice. Hamirik chipping in a timely goal or Neuvirth standing on his head night after night.